Earth receives "all" the energy from sun. Earth is assumed to emitt all the radiation it receives (to form equilibrium) but some of this emitted energy gets trapped and re-radiated back to the surface by certain gasses (H2O, CH4, CO2, ....), which causes warming of the troposphere and makes life possible. Otherwise, the earth would be on average about 40 deg cooler than it is now.

Does the earth’s interior make an overwhelming contribution to the surface temperature?

This claim seems to be contradicted by the fact that it is warmer in daytime. And in summer. And closer to the equator. It takes a rare kind of talent to present an argument on climate change that is inconsistent with the existence of seasons.

Scientists have extensively measured the flow of heat from inside the earth—it amounts to 0.075 Watts per square metre, while incoming solar radiation is 342 Watts per square metre, about 5000 times as much. Hissink is correct that heat from the earth is not included in climate models—but that is because it is negligible.

That's a great web link.It would be interesting to know if the 24000 heat flow measurements have been made in the same places over a period of years
to map any variability.Also the heat measurements on the sea relied on correction for hydrothermal loss and this would depend on hydrothermal loss models being accurate.I agree now that the heat contribution from the Earth's interior is insignificant.

The heat from the interior is isignificant to global warming, but it makes the earth dynamic, without interior heat sources from the decay of radioactive nuclei we would'nt have plate tectonics and there wouldn't be any volcanoes or (at least much less) earthquakes

Edit: I just clicked on that link and it said pretty much what i said, although I wouldn't trust that link entirely seeing as nuclear fission is a process which absorbs energy!